Picdelamirand-oil

Je pense que dans ce post Parikrama a mélangé des faits comme d'habitude mais aussi des réflexion personnelles. C'est évident pour les commentaires de la fin mais aussi pour la menace F-35 aux environs de 2020. Dans des posts précédent on a appris que les US n'acceptaient de parler de F-35 que lorsqu'ils auraient produit 200 SE, et en 2020 ils ne seront pas produit.

Pour l'instant c'est l'IAF qui annonce des résultats ! En disant qu'ils sont très satisfait de la façon dont le Kaveri et le LCA avance maintenant. C'est fou qu'on ait jamais rien entendu sauf avec les fuites de Parikrama. Pourtant on a avertit Dassault sur ce sujet.

Tu rigole?

La France ne l'accepterait pas, le Rafale est considéré comme stratégique.

Il a 49% de DRAL, mais c'est difficile d'aller plus vite que la musique, une spécialité indienne qui fait qu'ils sont toujours en retard.

30th September has come and its time for an updated buzz in the corridors of power. Lot of focus has been on SE so will start with the other competitor in SE Jet fighter plan Gripen E Update Last Saab news in the main SE thread was here http://indiandefence.com/threads/f1...-and-possibilities.56222/page-256#post-595296 As of today Gripen E is in 2nd position but its an open option. The deal structure and the whole program offered inclusive of all direct technology, licencing and integration is more complicated and highly expensive IAF evaluation based on responses in MMRCA and as of new documents submitted by Saab shows Gripen E/F has drawbacks with engine power to weight in straight line. The second problem is Gripen E fully eating out the program of LCA. Contrary to the belief that Gripen E will might be renamed as LCA Mk2 or position itself as Mk2, its threat is actually directly to MK1A. There were two papers about Gripen internally and if Gripen comes the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A "All" orders will be certainly reduced. The reduction will be based on non performance of HAL - Inability to deliver the aircraft on time and unable to meet certain quality parameters+ performance specifications. There is a report submitted from HAL as well which has opposed Gripen E in similar language and has expressed great concern for LCA Mk1/Mk1A program curtailment scope. Tech Integration from 5th Gen platform To a direct query of a possibility of integration of F35 sub systems into Gripen, James Mattis has formally declined any chances. In a candid view, he expresses strong reservation against continuing USA support for Gripen for long time and has said if a threat comes to US MIC and figher ecosystem, preferential treatment will be given to American companies only. There is another challenge of Saab offer comprising of future integration of systems bought off teh shelf which are basically part of 5th gen systems research. Its on paper as of now and would take a long time (at least a decade plus) before any successful integration and matured 5th gen tech from 3rd party system will be available for Gripen Integration of Indian Engine - the Safranised Kaveri option The SE fighter has a clear cut one agenda point - integration of Safransied Kaveri and its variants Beyond a particular number, there is a clear understanding that Safranised Kaveri will be the preferred option for the Fighter In MLU, the more powerful version of Safranised Kaveri will be used to upgrade the planes further. Dimensions will remain same with only metallurgy and components/ compression/ stages change. Teh core is M88 core only for all these engines The aim is to increase Dry thrust to 6x-7x-8x and AB to 9x-10x-11x-12x Emphasis is on Dry thrust of course and a regime for max SFC around 0.8M-1.2M The chief challenge here is Gripen E will need re designing for the engine. F16 needs no such changes LCA Mk1A/Mk1X also no changes Rafale (all variants) also no changes This is a big let down for Saab and Gripen E and internal studies have revealed any such fitment comes at a much higher cost, and re certification much beyond just engine and flight performance and goes deeper into the airframe and entire EW + systems Talks were still held for the fitment and a solution has already been proposed and for all intensive purposes it would be easier to take out the engine in all other crafts mentioned above as per the internal study than in Gripen E. Chances of Gripen - Tough chance inspite of Gripen E being far more newer aircraft program In terms of assessment it has reached almost 60-65% of its potential as part of program development. In terms of maturity versus F16 which is almost 100% of program development and integrating further newer tech from F-35, the assessment of overall proposal of Saab is weaker as detailed above. Especially the Engine thing is a big let down inspite of being talked about many times on this by indian officials Meteor integration and 5 meteor config is a big hit among the IAF people who already are over the moon with Meteors in Rafales (max 4 as of now but study underway to make it 6 under a deep upgrade proposed later in F4/4.2 - not sure if the cost is practical as it will involve heavy modifications). Commonality of Meteor and ability to take out HV targets right from FW bases and taking out AWACS /AARs /Force Multipliers without extra mobilization is a big advantage. There is another reason for Gripen E to be still in race as explained below in threats to F16 and its regarding software codes F16 and USA The points have been made before in the main thread AIM 120D and a new variant is proposed All the top missiles which can go in F35 will be available. A new program under Raytheon and analogous to Meteor is also proposed as Future AMRAAM. Its a necessity as detailed above in case of Meteor integration in F35 as well as in Gripen E In A2G - AGM-65 Maverick/laser Maverick, AGM 142B - HaveLite, AGM-88 HARM is offered. IN A2A- Iris-T, AIM 7F/M Sparrow, AIM 120 A/B/C/D AMRAAM, AIM 9 N/P/ L/ M/ S/ XSidewinder are proposed. The A2G General weapons - 500lb and 2000lb bombs and Mk82,83,84 and GBU - 15/22/24/27/32/31/38 - JDAM is also on offer. In Decoys - MALD and towed Decoy is offered In ECM - ALQ 131 ECM Pod/ ALQ-211 AIDEWS POD and ALQ 119/184 ECM POD is there. In Targeting systems - Sniper, Litening, HARM targeting system R7 and Integrated FLIR targeting systems is offered. CFT in wings and 1100L center tank + 1400L under wing tank+ 2200L under wing tank options are there. JHMCS 2 is offerred as well with GPS integration to local Indian system. Threat to F16 / American political deal USA- India relation is on upswing post Bush and Obama and now mainly due to Trump who is taking it forward with a greater emphasis on powering up India Militarily for the USA-India-Israel-Japan-Australia axis creation. But there are certain deals where we dont see eye to eye like Climate Agreement deal Also there are Information warfare and hacking issues in USA planes which have been bought by some of the countries who sabotaged and changed teh source codes to modify and better certain specs Sub system hacks for F16 are still present and are mostly denied by USA people but they are there only very few can review it. India has a powerful software community so that might be uncovered and reversed any threat and potential damage But USA wants a "user agreement" to be agreed on before any MII absolving of any such damage caused which is why Gripen E is not already off the table. There is also a sizable cost of sharing F16 line+ ecosystem completely to India and thats going to play a decisive role with overall costs budgeting. FGFA status As mentioned before there has been numerous points pointed by LM and Boeing about PAKFA program. FGFA is stuck because the USA has shown several problems in stealth and engine output with framework issues for higher mach speed. Right now its being noted as very low probability to make such extensive changes under the price given by Russia MOD believes the price offered to us is a bait when compared to other such projects R&D costs. The report says cost to be too low and is certainly a ploy as in to bait and then ask for money again in future. The report also says based on experience and post MKI deal, the tech share status is better in Russia than in USA but the linking of missile system and the the new Nuclear link which has come up is a problem Rafale - More orders and the biggest threat to come - F35 after 2020 + Main thread - http://indiandefence.com/threads/rafale-deal-signed.56201/ The next tranche of 36 is progressing well but it seems a strong idea is mooted by MOD to see if Dassault and France is serious about MII or not right at this stage. There is a strong view of assembling these 36 at DRAL facility to showcase their real commitment for MII with standard localisation as possible under present deal offset conditions If they accept such a proposition, it becomes easier for more orders with better localisation phase wise and is much easier than minimum 90 Rafales order. The chief problem being TE MII is seen with Mig 35 as a competitor owing to the Russian offer in the hands of MOD The chances of Rafale order curtailment is growing ground for one bigger reason -F35 The political side of the SE USA deal and with a possibility of buying out support from overall F35 consortium with the help of USA is gaining at a rapid pace. With priority delivery from USA line for India its becoming extremely lucrative for New Delhi 2020 or afterwards is said to be when India can get a taste of the F35 if India chooses too and with certain pre conditions. Thus team Dassault needs to move in pretty quick. The USA ally and F-35 scope has actually put the ball back in France's court. Will they move in and accept assembling 36 at DRAL India - thats the big question. Overall comment- GOI needs a showcase MII program which can show tangible results and can be used as poster presentation for 2019 elections. As of now no program has a head start except DRAL implementing offsets but it more hinges on Safranised Kaveri and its success A successful Kaveri powering Rafale to be made/assembled in India will go a long way forward compared to other SE deals. A successful Kaveri powering LCA MK1A is also highly needed to safeguard our own MIC. It would be wise to see which LRUs and parts/systems can be made in DRAL as part of HAL outsourcing if French side seriously wishes to help LCA program as LCA ecosystem is struggling to make enough numbers for 24/year production limit. About USA jets well, there are lots of pros and cons..But a political deal is what PM NM is looking at and it makes sense to be on USA side versus Sweden side especially if the deal leads to the consortium of countries under F-35 program As usual, the headaches are way too many for GOI. MOD and IAF. But modernization is highly needed and its not just LCA but many other places as well. Like it or not we have to import for next decade. Even if we cry a lot and make noises , the fact remains present MIC is not in a stage to deliver whats needed. Its better if we focus on getting the jets and upgrade our MIC ecosystem to support LCA program first and then think about other programs and say no completely to Imports. http://indiandefence.com/threads/source-based-iaf-update-as-on-30-09-2017.65172/

Je place ici une analyse dont l'idée m'est venue après la lecture d'un post et même de plusieurs posts de Parikrama. Ce post a surpris et j'en cite l'extrait qui m' intéresse: Ça semble peu crédible à priori, mais cela m'a incité à comparer l'expression du besoin des EAU et les caractéristiques connues de F4. Expression du besoin: Le besoin des EAU est discuté par le général Alain Silvy dans le DSI édition spéciale d'Août 2010 Et maintenant les caractéristiques de F4 Pour résumer que veulent les EAU: Un moteur plus puissant Un Radar qui porte plus loin Des améliorations de SPECTRA. Pour le moteur plus puissant on résiste encore, mais il y a un espoir: Ces améliorations de la partie sans post combustion, ce sont peut être elles qui peuvent améliorer la poussée à 8.3 t. Et même si les Français n'en voient pas l'utilité, c'est peut être disponible à l'export. Pour le Radar on a déjà fait une grande partie du chemin avec le RBE2 AESA qui a amélioré les performances en portée de 100% alors qu'on attendait 40 à 50%, et en plus il y aura une antenne AESA GaN pour F4.2 qui doublera la puissance émise et devrait donc améliorer la portée de 20%. Au total si la portée du PESA est 100, les EAU demandaient 160, on est déjà à 200 et on sera à 240. En plus les fonctions GMTT GMTI sont prévues. Donc pour moi pas de problème de ce coté là. Pour les amélioration de SPECTRA , l'extension des fréquences vers le haut et vers le bas est prévue ainsi que l'augmentation de la sensibilité qui est un résultat naturel de l'utilisation de GaN du fait de leur meilleur rendement. On peut penser que les autres améliorations ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce que veulent les EAU puisque le général Silvy dit que les Français et les EAU ont les mêmes besoins, mais pas avec le même calendrier. Donc on a une convergence qui doit pouvoir être exploitée. Et tout cela pourquoi? Pour avoir un avion dit de 5ème génération !!! C'est le point de vue des EAU : http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/uae-may-ditch-france-to-award-10bn-jet-deal-to-us-2010-09-23-1.294435 C'est le point de vue de l'Egypte Le Caire qui veut disposer d'avion capables de se mesurer au JSF F-35 Et c'est le point de vue de l'IAF qui compare favorablement le Rafale "NV" au Pak Fa. On ne sait pas en détail ce qu'il y a dans le Rafale F4.2 mais ça semble le rapprocher beaucoup d'un avion de cinquième génération qui intéresserait les EAU.

Financer en échange d'une charge de travail.

Tu crois qu'on peut lui faire une MLU?

C'est ce qu'il y a de plus précis sur F4 et ça permet les citations dans les forum anglo saxonisant.

Oui quand ce sera livré.

C'est ce qui était prévu pour 2017 (45 rénovation de Mirage 2000D commandées) et maintenant il y en a 55 en 2018, mais rien ne dit qu'il n'y en aurait pas eu 10 en 2018 en plus des 45 de 2017. On peut le vérifier sur l'article déjà mis en lien: http://www.opex360.com/2017/09/28/la-renovation-des-55-mirage-2000d-sera-finalement-lancee-en-2018/

L'avion F-35, un échec volant https://www.franceculture.fr/societe/lavion-f-35-un-echec-volant

Ben, ..... ce sont les dividendes de la paix

Que veux tu Gilmore est partis, par exemple lui ne souhaitait commencer les essais DOT&E qu'une fois que tout ce qui était nécessaire était disponible, son remplaçant accepte de commencer avec ce qu'il y a pour "gagner" du temps.

The numbers LM state anyways will get validated by IAF and they wont get swayed by claims.. of course cant say much if the political deal goes through.... there radar comes with +/- 60 degree sweeping zone for 20 targets.. OTOH Rafale RBE 2 AESA radar - sweeping zone on record is +/-70 degree for 40 targets 1m2 detection range at 160 km, 3m2 - 220 km and 5m2 -300 km and IRST @ 120km for IAF specified version It will get further upgraded with GaN and F4/4.2 upgrades with usage of higher power and better detection algos. The challenge is active sources detect 0.1m2 around 110-120km at par with IRST detection range. (Rafale case). not overtly relevant now but in a decade it will be relevant a lot more.. So the upgarde F4/4.2 matters a lot from taht perspective. Make it 0.01m2 and it drops to almost 75 km - again detection range of RBE 2 AESA The challenge in future will be with active cancellation and EW induced signature reduction. Thats where the issue will come. Bcz a alert detection of a incoming bogie by ground based long ranged radars or say airborne radars ~300 km, followed by a sortie preparedness in 3 mins and climbing to say 15000 feet in 2 minutes will leave limited range left - Mach 1.2 incoming bogie, detection range will be less than 180 kms easily . Now consider a situation if the incoming bogie has suppressing abilities and have more of 0.1m2 or even lesser towards 0.01m2. The ground based detection or airborne itself will be limited or far lesser than before..so the whole scenario changes.. We also need to understand that detection range means nothing if the engagement rings and Probability of Interception (success rate) is not deemed enough for a mission. It is this part where we need to understand why F16 radar system is adequate for their (USA) kind of infrastructure versus ours where Pakistan breadth is around just ~150 kms. and incoming bogie leaves limited scope. And yes they dont have anything which is 1m2 or less...(except missiles may be) OTOH of course any bogie from East side barring perhaps J20 with suppressing /cancellation abilities (to be demonstrated) , this same issue will plague many. Thats why MKI radar is basically a blessing with its monster detection range... and AESA upgrade will serve well.. But again MKI wont be in forefront.. it will be deeper so first line of detection wont be MKIs.. http://indiandefence.com/threads/f16-gripen-make-in-india-single-engine-aircraft-news-and-possibilities.56222/page-265#post-596619

Si le budget des armées passe à 2% du PIB, pourquoi pas?

Elle est en France , l'état Français peut dire dans ce cas je nationalise.

C'est pas moi qui décide, après peut être qu'on trouvera intéressant de rétrofiter les plus anciens pour ne garder que 2 générations.

Some buzz from James Mattis Meeting (first few points) Guaranteed sharing of approximately 70% components commonality between F16 Block 7F and F35s with a intended target to make it 75%. This is the chief challenge as the specification of Block 7F is getting further upgraded for Indian needs and the sharing of technology for commonality parts is a challenge. Rest of the technology which can be shared without any hassles is submitted by LM for due consideration which includes all present tech upto UAE block 60 and classified tech not pertaining to F35s. The CFTs are getting further enhanced to reach a combat radii as needed by IAF Globally F16 availability rate is around 70% (just a tad below it actually). For India specifically a 75% availability rate as advised will be undertaken and a Performance based Logistics and Support deal is also being planned to meet it stringently. About Investments for full fledged Line transfer (every process) from Fort Worth to Indian TASL, some suggestions include Sharing costs between two parties GOI-IAF & TASL-LM for full line transfer and the whole chain This will lead to minimum production rate of 3-4 F16s per Month from TASL Also it will showcase commitment from India and its seriousness to facilitate full transfer of the ecosystem Need to strengthen the IPR regime and the proprietary tech to certain vendors who are part of teh supply chain, In such places, a 74% stake to be held via US entity is envisioned Technology for local MIC includes - On board Central Pedestral Display Improved Programmable Display Generator Common Color Multifunction Displays CPU and core technology behind them Slots kept free for more core additions which can enhance and give additional performance of the system upto 50% based on multiple new scan systems taken from F35s APG-83 SABR Air cooled AESA radar with terrain following, Radar common data link and ISAR (inverse SAR) APG-83 is Northrop product so can be shared completely if the commitment for India is clearly there. (including all codes and software behind) Complete software codes for all hardwares onboard Targeting system for A2A and A2G - whole process of hardware, software and countermeasures etc Mattis also stressed this whole F16 ecosystem will become global hub for all spares, upgrades and orders and USA will leave the whole F16 ecosystem with India only. Mattis also stressed that owing to commonality of 70% between F16 Block7F and F35s and targeted 75%, it will lead to easier transition to F35s at a later stage. Mattis also clarified that Block 7F is superior to Block 60 by a big margin owing to F35 tech. The block 52s that IAF knows inside out of Singapore AF is further behind. Mattis also emphasized that PAF operated F16s is entirely different and generation behind the Block 7F. In terms of capability, the present 7F is more than twice then what Block 52 so PAF F16s are further beyond the curve. Its also added by a LM representative later that A2G mode of APG 83 can scan upto 290 kms and A2A mode is roughly 180 km for a 3m2, ~120km for 1m2 based on various factors and IRST will track in the range of ~80km DM NS said the same will be evaluated and considered as per the quick process planned http://indiandefence.com/threads/f16-gripen-make-in-india-single-engine-aircraft-news-and-possibilities.56222/page-265#post-596562

Oui c'est probable, par exemple F4.2 pourrait très bien gérer un Radar GaN avec des antennes latérales et une capacité multistatique (c'est juste un exemple je ne prétend pas qu'il aura tout cela) dans ce cas si on monte une antenne GaN sur un F4.1 ça restera un F4.1 avec peut être une portée plus grande. Pour le multi statique il faut non seulement upgrader le Radar mais aussi avoir une liaison avec une faible latence et un haut débit et il n'est pas sur que tous les équipements, ancien et nouveaux, pourront communiquer avec tous les autres. On doit pouvoir faire en sorte qu'un F4.2 sache gérer une configuration F4.1 mais on aura pas forcément toutes les fonctions.

C'est très difficile d'estimer le vrai prix d'un avion lorsque tu commence la production. Il y a beaucoup de dépense pour le développement, quand c'est un avion militaire c'est en général payé par l'état ou les états qui commandent. Quand c'est un avion qui s'adresse à un marché (en général un avion civil) il faut amortir le développement sur un nombre arbitraire d'unités à produire. On peut faire des études de marché pour déterminer ce nombre, mais si tu veux faire du dumping il suffit de doubler le nombre d'avions que tu compte vendre pour diminuer artificiellement le prix de l'avion. Dans les faits on amortie sur environ 300 avions et si on produit plus ça permet de faire des évolutions et des baisses de prix pour augmenter encore la série.

F4.1 c'est uniquement software sans mise à jour hardware, ça peut s'appliquer facilement à tous les Rafale déja produit. F4.2 c'est une mise à jour software et hardware, c'est facile à introduire sur de nouveaux avions et c'est retrofitable sur les anciens mais ça coûte le prix des nouveaux équipements. Une MLU c'est une modification tellement profonde qu'elle touche les équipements et l'avion, par exemple le passage de F1 à F2/F3 était un genre de MLU: il a fallu repasser sur la chaîne d'assemblage pour rétrofitter les F1. Si on devait revoir les entrées d'air pour mettre un M-88 9t ce serait dans le cadre d'une MLU. En général on trouve la modification trop chère pour l'appliquer aux anciens avions. Il se trouve que bien que F4.2 soit rétrofitable, la France n'a pas l'intention de l'appliquer aux anciens avions, on le traite donc comme si c'était une MLU.

D'accord, mais même si il s'autorise une déviation un peu limite, il n'a pas de raisons dans ce cas de garder la PC allumée.

Macron plaide pour un « Erasmus » militaire https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/030620620187-macron-plaide-pour-un-erasmus-militaire-2117298.php